The fatal shooting of a legally armed anti-ICE protester by federal agents in Minneapolis on Saturday has ripped open a rare and bitter split within the gun-rights movement.
The killing of Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse and licensed concealed-carry holder, is pitting groups of members demanding investigations and constitutional accountability against others rushing to defend law enforcement.
Pretti was shot dead during an immigration enforcement operation after confronting ICE agents during a demonstration.
Video shows Pretti holding a cell phone as he was pepper-sprayed and wrestled to the ground by multiple officers, with footage appearing to capture an agent removing his holstered handgun moments before a barrage of shots rang out.
The Department of Homeland Security said Pretti “violently resisted” and that agents feared for their lives, justifying the killing. That claim is being fiercely disputed by the slain protester’s family and critics who say the video contradicts the official account.
Gun-rights groups critical of the shooting said Pretti’s death raises fundamental constitutional questions about lawful carry and police use of force.
“Every peaceable Minnesotan has the right to keep and bear arms — including while attending protests, acting as observers, or exercising their First Amendment rights,” the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus said in a statement.
The group said those protections do not disappear during encounters with law enforcement, adding that “many critical facts remain unknown” and that “there has been no evidence produced indicating an intent to harm the officers.”
Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Gun Owners of America, and Second Amendment Foundation all called for an investigation of the Pretti shooting. The NRA took a different tack, though. https://t.co/eFMUU2U1gU
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) January 25, 2026
Gun Owners of America also condemned the official rhetoric surrounding the shooting, saying: “Federal agents are not ‘highly likely’ to be ‘legally justified’ in ‘shooting’ concealed carry licensees who approach while lawfully carrying a firearm.”
The Second Amendment Foundation echoed that concern, warning, “The claim that some are now making – that the peaceable carry of a firearm near officers is enough to justify them using lethal force – is an affront to the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.”
But other gun-rights voices lined up behind law enforcement, arguing Pretti put himself in danger by confronting federal agents during an active operation.
This sentiment from the First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California is dangerous and wrong.
Responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens. https://t.co/9fMz3CL29o
— NRA (@NRA) January 25, 2026
“For months, radical progressive politicians like Tim Walz have incited violence against law enforcement officers who are simply trying to do their jobs,” the National Rifle Association said, referring to Minnesota’s embattled Democratic governor.
But the NRA also issued a rare public rebuke of a Trump administration prosecutor after he suggested that law-enforcement officers would likely be justified in shooting anyone who approaches them while armed.
Bill Essayli, first assistant US attorney for the Central District of California, sparked the backlash on Saturday with a blunt post on X hours after the shooting, writing: “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.”
The comment, which made no distinction between lawful permit holders and criminal suspects, was quickly seized on by gun-rights groups that said it effectively framed the mere act of carrying a firearm near police as grounds for lethal force.
Carrying a firearm is not a death sentence, it’s a Constitutionally protected God-given right, and if you don’t understand this you have no business in law enforcement or government. https://t.co/pWPNo9dmLO
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) January 25, 2026
“This sentiment from the First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California is dangerous and wrong,” the NRA wrote in a statement.
“Responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.”
But the NRA also added that “calls to dangerously interject oneself into legitimate law-enforcement activities have ended in violence, tragically resulting in injuries and fatalities,” placing blame on political rhetoric rather than agent conduct.
That sentiment was echoed by some gun owners online, with one AR15.com user writing: “I think you should expect to get shot if you are physically fighting with police officers while armed.
“That’s not protesting.”
Another forum user was more blunt, dismissing the controversy entirely and writing: “You approach and confront a bunch of guys with guns with a gun.
“Guys with guns decide they aren’t getting shot by you today. You get shot. So ends the story.”
